A source close to the Duke described the situation as 'not ideal'. Photo / Getty Images
The Duke of Sussex’s stalker sat a stone’s throw from him on two occasions at the High Court during the past week, the Telegraph can reveal.
Prince Harry was in court for the opening of his United Kingdom privacy trial against the publisher of the Daily Mail and gave evidence two days later.
The known stalker, who it is understood may be suffering from mental health issues, attended the hearing on two of the four days the Duke was in court, taking a seat in the public gallery a few metres behind him.
On both occasions, the woman, who is on a list of known fixated individuals drawn up by a private intelligence company for the Duke, was immediately noticed by his private security team, who alerted court security staff.
A source close to the Duke said: “There is nothing they could do; they are not the police. It’s a public building, and she has a right to be there. He is obviously always worried about his security situation; it’s not ideal.”
The incident coincided with an ongoing review of the security threat posed to the Duke, which was ordered by the British Home Office in December.
The Duke spent little more than two hours on the stand on Wednesday local time, breaking down as he alleged that journalists working for Associated Newspapers Limited had “made my wife’s life an absolute misery”.
He denied befriending a Mail on Sunday journalist on Facebook using the pseudonym Mr Mischief and partying with her in Ibiza, repeatedly insisting that his social circle was not “leaky”.
The £38 million ($87.1m) trial will continue next week in his absence.
The Duke returned to the United States this weekend and was scheduled to attend the premiere of Cookie Queens at the Sundance Film Festival alongside his wife, Meghan. Both are listed as executive producers of the documentary about girl scouts.
The stalker previously followed the Duke to Nigeria, and last September evaded security to get into a “secure zone” at a central London hotel, where he was attending the WellChild Awards.
She was also seen near him two days later at the Centre for Blast Injury Studies in west London, security sources said.
The decision to grant him a full security risk assessment marked an about-turn by the Government, made despite his defeat in a high-profile legal challenge brought against the Home Office over his right to automatic taxpayer-funded protection.
After losing his appeal, Prince Harry wrote to Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, hopeful that she would take a different approach to her predecessor, Yvette Cooper.
Two months later it emerged he had been granted a security review by the Risk Management Board, the expert body that submits its findings to the Royal and VIP Executive Committee (Ravec), the secretive group responsible for making such decisions.
Neil Basu, the former head of the UK’s Counter Terrorism unit, who held various positions on Ravec from 2018 to 2021, believes that without armed protection, the Duke has been left exposed.
He told the Telegraph that to have a stalker repeatedly appearing in front of you “must be incredibly anxiety-inducing”.
Basu said: “There are clearly people with fixations, and you can never fully know where that fixation will lead until you’ve assessed that person’s state of mind.
“It might be declarations of undying love and sending roses, or it might be wanting to cause harm. If somebody keeps appearing in front of you ... Imagine if you were a normal member of the public, you’d be absolutely terrified.”
The last time the Duke received a full risk assessment was in 2019, when he was still a fulltime working member of the Royal family.
Then, he was deemed such a target that he was put in the highest category – a level seven out of seven.
Basu said it was “incredibly positive” that the Home Office had decided to review the perceived threat level.
He said: “That is the right thing to do, and I cannot see a situation in which his threat and risk have reduced in the intervening time when he’s in the UK. As one of the most recognisable men on the planet, his threat and risk will be, in my view, the same as it was in 2019. It may even have increased because of the publicity around him.”
The former police chief believes the Duke could never have won his legal challenge against the Home Office. He has described it as more of an “ethical” decision, or one that is simply rooted in “common sense”.
Whatever Ravec decides, and the review is still in progress, Basu said it should bring some closure.
He said: “What [the Duke] was fighting for was some transparency in the decision-making process. Although he has won some of that through disclosure in the court, he still hasn’t had a full explanation. This is the start of that explanation. He might not agree with the rationale, but at least he will be given the rationale.”
The security issue is now intrinsically linked to the Duke’s fragile relationship with his father.
He made it clear last year that he believed the King had the power to influence Ravec, because his private secretary sat on the committee.
The Prince told the BBC: “I’ve never asked him to intervene. I’ve asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their job.”
Buckingham Palace rejected the suggestion, insisting that Ravec was wholly independent.
The Duke has also refused to bring his wife and children back to the UK without full police protection, fearing their lives are at risk, which in turn impairs their relationship with their grandfather.
The Ravec decision – not expected for several weeks – will have a major effect on the Duke’s work and private life over the next two years, with multiple return visits planned before the 2027 Invictus Games in Birmingham.
He has made no secret of his desire to bring Prince Archie, 6, and Princess Lilibet, 4, back to the UK.
In a witness statement lodged with the High Court during his legal challenge against the Home Office, he said: “The UK is my home. The UK is central to the heritage of my children and a place I want them to feel at home as much as where they live at the moment in the US.
“That cannot happen if it’s not possible to keep them safe when they are on UK soil. I cannot put my wife in danger like that and, given my experiences in life, I am reluctant to unnecessarily put myself in harm’s way too.”
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.